Székely Nép, 1999 (31-32. évfolyam, 43-44. szám)

1999-03-01 / 43. szám

anteed for the Hungarian minority In spite of this fact, the Hungarians in Slovakia, immediately following the dictatorships demise, demanded autonomous self-government, as the only means to solve the minority issue.

The "Political Movement of Coexistence" on its IV. National Congress declared: "It is the basic right of the Hungarian minority of Slovakia to exercise its self determination through local and regional self-administration, within the framework of personal autonomy."

Even though the "Party of Hungarian Coalition" at the latest election of 1998 became a partner of the ruling coalition, it could not force the withdrawal of the Benes edict; and the reorganization of the administration according to Hungarian ideals was pushed even farther, than it was in the past.

Sub-Carpathia, which is called today Carpatho-Ukraine also came forward with the demand of national autonomy for the majority Carpatho-Russian population, and also the Hungarian minority of 150,000 people. It was in 1918 that the Carpatho-Russians demanded autonomy for the first time, which was pursued without success during the Czechoslovakian reign, until 1939. Following the return of Sub-Carpathia to the Hungarian homeland in 1939, the government of Budapest prepared the legal document for a regional autonomy, in other words granted the very thing that the regime in Prague denied to them throughout its reign. "Prime Minister Pal Teleki opened up new vistas for the development of political rights and cultural wellbeing of the Carpatho-Russians," writes György Dupka, the Sub-Carpathian politician and writer. But the Second World War interrupted its practical realizatioa

Carpatho-Ukraine is the only region in Cenlral-Europe which exchanged masters under the guise of "self-determination:" from Czechoslovakia to the Soviet Union. This was the excuse that Stalin used to annex the region to his own empire. The then Hungarian Government believed the explanation, and the minister of external affairs, Janos Gyöngyös, said the following: "it fills us with great satisfaction the fact that the union of Carpatho- Ukraine with the Soviet Union was based on the same democratic principle by which every nation determines its place by its own volition, and we hope that the same principle will determine the fate of other nationality issues also." Gyöngyös was obviously referring to the fate of Transylvania, which at that time was still an open issue. However, Moscow had absolutely no desire to apply the principle

Page 4

of self-determination at the peace conference, quite on the contrary, it was most instrumental to hamper the intentions of the Western powers to redesign the Hungarian-Romanian frontiers, by putting it to a vote. This is convincingly documented by Mihály Fulop and Gabor Vincze in their documentation collection, called: "Revision or Autonomy?" which appeared through the László Teleki Foundation in 1998.

After 1990, the Sub-Carpathian autonomy straggles were once again reopened, first by the Carpatho-Russians, who under the leadership of a medical professor of Ungvar established a shadow government. In the surroundings of Beregszász, more than 80% of the population voted for autonomy in December of 1991. They decided the reintroduction of the Hungarian names of the localities. The county government of Beregszász accepted the article about the regional Hungarian autonomy. It would have been promulgated if the Kiev parliament had voted for it. Needless to say, it has never done it.

In Transylvania the Romanian nation made a solemn promise for the realization of the Hungarian autonomy at the National Assembly of Gyulafehervar: "Every nationality has absolute right - declared the Assembly - to its own education and government on its own language, with its own legislative assemblies, and in the government of the country each nationality will participate according to the size of its population."

This promise was never ratified by the Government of Bucharest, never passed by the Parliament, and never built into the national constitution. In its frustration and hope what else could have done the Transylvanian Hungarians, the largest minority group in the Carpathian basin, but doggedly to cleave to the wilsonian principle of self-determination. The writer, Karoly Kos, in his pamphlet, called "Crying Word," declared in 1921: .... "We want national autonomy, in the possession of which Greater-Romania will gain responsible citizens in us." After sixteen years of bitter experiences, Aron Tamasi, at the Meeting of Vásárhely repeated the same Hungarian demand in his "Confession," on October of 1937: "Based upon the declaration of the Transylvanian Romanians, made at the Gyulafehervar resolutions, we demand self government for the Hungarians of Romania.

After forty-five years of dictatorship, during which it would have been lifethreatening even to mention the demand of self determination, the Hungarians came

forward with their demand for autonomy once again, right after the fall of the Ceausescu regime. The victims of the firing lines were not yet buried, when 15 leading intellectuals, all persecuted by the dictatorship, in their manifesto, entitled "Calling Word," demanded the right of self-determination immediately.

Not long afterwards, the Szekler region expressed the desire of autonomy. The Szeklers invoked ancient rights, going back to the National Assembly of Agyagfalva in 1506, when their human rights were adopted in the "Constitution of Agyagfalva." They were hoping that these initiatives would find an echo from the Hungarian motherland or from the West, but nothing was heard. Yet in Transylvania the "Democratic Association of Hungarians in Romania," the protective arm of the Hungarian minority in the Romanian Parliament, unanimously demanded the establishment of an internal autonomy. The council of National Delegates and the parliamentarians gave out a declaration in Kolozsvár, in October 25, 1992, which said: "We consider our birthplace our home. Yet we do not want to be assimilated in the Romanian nation.. .It is our duty to point to solutions which could lead us and the country out of this dilemma... We firmly believe that the right way remains the way of internal selfdetermination.

Who ever heard this in the Foreign Ministries of the great power? Who took it seriously the will and the voice of the largest minority group in Europe? Do they üstén only to the places where the guns are thundering, like in Kosovo today?

The minorities and small nations were never able in the past nor will they be able in the future to determine their faith by themselves. A new Wilson should come forward, who as the leader of the only super-power can empathize with the feelings and aspirations of the small nation, and who is willing to secure the peace of his own country and that of the world in such a way that it should be at the same time the freedom and the peace of all small nations and minorities. The peace that is so much desired in our undivided global world must also be undivided and global. One country or one half of the world can enjoy it only, if the other half enjoys it also.

This is the sum and meaning of the principle of self-determination. President Wilson would surely not give this up today!

~-------------------------— t